Why Clinton's Not Sorry: Maintaining (Imperialistic?) Power for Executive Branch

[DrFunkenstein]

(H)er motivation not to apologize goes deeper than that, advisers said.

Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.

“She thinks she will be president and will have to negotiate on the nation’s behalf with world leaders,” said one Clinton adviser.

“She thinks we’re likely to still be in this mess in 2009, and coming onto the campaign trail and groveling and saying at every opportunity that you made a mistake doesn’t actually help you solve the problem.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html

My antipathy to a Clinton presidency only grows, even when I try to give her a shot. After all of the efforts by Bush, Cheney, and Alberto Gonzalez to expand the scope of executive powers and privileges, the last thing I want is someone who refuses to regret a vote that resulted in thousands and thousands of lives lost or destroyed simply because she wants to "stay the course" on the overreach.

It seems to me that Clinton's drive is rooted in power, unlike the compassion of her empathetic husband. I hate having such simplistic thoughts, but she makes it very difficult to move away from the image of her as a calculating Machiavellian.

Yes, I want a Democrat in the White House, but it is still early enough to ask questions like "At what expense?"

While I don't think Clinton would have invaded Iraq, I do not find it very difficult - at all - to imagine her starting a war to prove that she is as "tough" as a Republican.

I think she relishes the "tough" label, something I find repugnant in politicians who make the decisions that affect very real human lives in search of manly adjectives.

Furthermore, the writing on the wall suggests that Democrats will control Congress for some time. The fact that Clinton would fear accountability from her own party only adds to my consternation.

[AtomicKitten]

1. at least you named your motivation

antipathy n. , pl. -thies . A strong feeling of aversion or repugnance.

[lancdem]

2. I have no problem with this

She believes in the power of the presidency. So did her husband. His intervention in Kosovo (with the support of NATO) was done without congressional approval, and I was behind that. Some presidents abuse that power, like the current one, and others don't.

BTW, the person quoted in this who disagrees with her not apologizing for her Iraq vote is Bob Shrum, the consultant who's worked on a bunch of losing Dem presidential campaigns, and never a winning one. That alone tells me she's doing the right thing, lol.

[DrFunkenstein]

3. Logical Fallacy

I despise Shrum myself (as a Kerry fan). That doesn't mean the point he makes aren't valid.

Likewise, because I agreed with the Kosovo intervention doesn't mean I support the elimination of Presidential accountability.

The framers wrote checks and balances into the Constitution for a good reason, one that is more important and more critical to our democracy than an individual intervention.

[welshTerrier2]

9. and a second logical fallacy

you said you know Hillary is doing the right thing because she is doing the opposite of what someone with a losing track record is doing.

"doing the right thing" takes more than just "winning".

Hillary's supporters absolutely fail to understand this. Your own argument highlights this fact.

It takes two things, not one. It takes winning to obtain the power needed to obtain the ultimate goal and it takes the right values and policies in the first place. Your definition of doing the right thing as only winning is the exact same reason i will never vote for Hillary.

[election_2004]

4. Because she can't stand to bear some humility

She believes apologizing would make her look "weak," so she has to come off as "tough" and knows she will get a free pass for it from the MSM and Dem establishment because she's a woman.

Not that I require a candidate to apologize for an IWR vote if they want my vote, but Senator Clinton's faux modesty doesn't fool me for one second: she's like a bully in a China shop, and I have no doubt that's how she'd govern the White House behind-the-scenes.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I feel and fear the same things. I am so against Clinton due to her need for

imperial power. The more I read the more I worry. I fear it would be a huge mistake and we would just be continuing as the past 6 years. I know she is secretive and there is alot in common here. I keep seeing and hearing (not in an article but, in asides with a story someone tells on tv and not meaning to be dismissing her) and my stomach thuds.
I have said I'd move if she is elected. it's because after 8 years I cannot stand more. too much.
I wish she wasn't like this but, the fact is what it is. It's sad, frightening and a possibility.

[oasis]

7. Paranoia can destroya. (eom)

[DURHAM D]

6. Oh My God - a woman with all that power. Be afraid,

be very afraid.

There is nothing wrong with power. It is how you use it.

Frankly, I would love to experience life with Hillary Clinton completely in charge of not just this country but this world. She is a decent human being, is not driven by hate but a desire to make things better and for some reason has dedicated her life to public service - that means it is dedicated to you (unless you are serving in elective office) whether or not you deserve it. I don't know how she does it - takes crap off of people all day every day on bogus issues and manages to flick them off and keep going forward. And not because she wants power to do wrong but power to do right.

By the way - she is not my personal choice for the Presidency. I just get tired of the nonsense posted here for the simple purpose of bashing Hillary.

[rman]

8. That much power in the hands of one person is not very democratic.

That, and not the gender of the person is the issue.

[Clark2008]

10. I'm a woman. I'd like to see a woman president - especially

now that I have a little girl on the way (I'd like her to grow up knowing women can be the president); however, I agree with the original assertion regarding imperial power.

Why is it when people question Hillary's motives, they're accused of misogyny. Some of us simply don't like her because of the things she says and does, not because of what's between her legs. Aren't we SUPPOSED to judge women on their stances and behaviors and not because they have a uterus? Isn't that the whole point of feminism?

I didn't see anything sexist in the OP. I thought it was a legitimate concern and probably would be raised if the OP was discussing HRC or any of her male counterparts should they have said something similar.

[Alamom]

14. Excellent post. Thank you. n/t

[DrFunkenstein]

15. You and I Have Radically Different Concepts About The World

Before I get into that, let me say that I think Clinton is a good person who happens to represent me in the U.S. Senate. I am proud to have her there. I do not believe she is evil or anything of the sort.

However, I do believe that the mix of gender and Presidential aspirations almost certainly play a part in her foreign policy decisions. She has to appear "tough" because she feels no one will support a woman who is not ready to launch a war if the need arises.

My fear is that the threshold of what constitutes the "need" to go to war is considerably lower for her because of the desire to look "tough." (boy, am i getting out the scare quotes in this post)

Finally, I am guessing - hoping - that you do not believe that Clinton should run the world. I don't believe anyone should run the world. Like the framers, I truly believe that power corrupts according to its scope.

I don't believe that any one political system is inherently better than the other, save that it remains accountable to the people. A system of checks in balances is vital to the success of any government, even a democracy where we get to choose between plutocrat A or B.

I recommend reading - or watching - Robert Graves' "I, Claudius" to see how important this issue is to our lives. Augustus was a noble ruler with the people's interests at heart - he reminded me of Bill Clinton a great deal. However, his notion of maintaining a permanent Emperor rather than returning significant power to the Senate led to the decline of the Roman empire (at least in the version by Graves).

No matter how thankful I am to see a Democrat in the White House, I have no interest in further dissolving the very system that makes greatness possible in a democracy.

[DURHAM D]

17. Wow DrFunk - you sure can get in a funk.

So - because she is a female she will pick a fight quicker than a guy. Nice view of female leaders. Sounds like a good, really good, reason not to ever vote for a female as President of such an important country.

As for the references to running the world - since its not a possibility that a single person can run the world I don't really need your historical references. I was making a point about decency, not taking a class in your philosophy.

[DrFunkenstein]

19. What About Nancy Pelosi?

Like many Democrats here, I would be very much excited by the prospect of a female President - just not Hillary Clinton.

I said upfront that I guessed/hoped that you didn't believe in an actual world leader. After that I was simply trying to make my point as to why I found the rationale for Clinton's refusal to concede her mistake on the war particularly disturbing.

I don't give lectures, I try to engage in civil debates and remain open to a convincing argument that can change my mind.

My whole purpose in elaborating was to make clear that I wasn't simply "Hillary-bashing." I have distinct reservations about her candidacy and I am giving them voice so that a dialogue about the whole thing can take place.

After Kerry dropped out - with Gore remaining coy - I am searching for someone to lend my support. I have not even ruled out Clinton, if by some reversal she manages to capture my heart. At this point, I leaning towards Obama and feel pretty good about Edwards.

I'm just trying to make sense of my country and our collective future. I am fearful of too much power concentrated in one person - or branch of the government, for that matter. That's all.

[DaveT]

11. She's my last choice among the Democrats running

because I can't think of a single reason to support her. To be sure, I'm not likely to get up enough antipathy for her to abstain (or vote splinter party) in November 2008. I believe we need to get the GOP out of power in 2008 -- and I am ready to accept a lot of bullshit to close that deal, if necessary. Luckily, with Obama, Edwards, Richardson running -- and with Gore in the wings -- I doubt that we are going to have to evaluate the Hillary gag point.

This bit of psychologizing about her not apologizing for the Iraq war plays no role in my antipathy. It is simpler than that. She voted for the damn thing. So did Kerry -- and he was my last choice among the contenders last go around for that very reason. By the way, that vote really hurt him in the election, as will Hillary's if she happens to get the nomination.

This drivel about how much power the President is supposed to have has nothing to do with why Hillary won't back away from the vote. Both she and Kerry were afraid to vote against it for fear of the war being a "success." If it had been a "success" with triumphant parades featuring a grateful Prime Minister Chalabi heaping praise on our War President, Mrs. Slick and Mr. War Hero would have been dead meat in the Presidential Hopeful Department if they had voted against starting the big show.

All you have to do is look through the archived pages of this and many other message boards to see that it was EASY to know that Bush was full of shit about Iraq. I do not buy any of the rationalizations for voting for Bush's idiotic war. The thinking at the time was that the war was going to happen any way, so why jump in front of the bus?

I agree that she avoids backing away from it for fear of appearing "weak" -- and I actually understand that consideration. If this were my only beef with her, it would be easy to vote for her. But it is not.

Neither Bush nor Hillary gives a rat's ass about the lofty abstraction of Presidential Authority To Conduct Foreign Policy. What they care about is winning. And in Shrub's case, he cares about handing money over to his sponsors.

It is a profound mystery what Hillary wants from being President other than showing that she can do it.

[bvar22]

12. You make some good points.

"Neither Bush nor Hillary gives a rat's ass about the lofty abstraction of Presidential Authority To Conduct Foreign Policy. What they care about is winning."

I would add only that the blood running through the streets of Baghdad is only a minor concern to their political careers and their corporate contributions.



" And in Shrub's case, he cares about handing money over to his sponsors."

And Hillary doesn't?


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[DaveT]

13. She gets the benefit of that doubt

pending further evidence.

I believe that she is not a psychopath, which is why I would hold my nose and vote for her if she were to win the nomination. At least as of now.

[IndianaGreen]

16. We are no safer under Clinton (or any other Democrat) than we are under Bush

if a new Democratic Administration in 2009 fails to restore the Constitution as the Law of the Land, by rescinding and repealing every power grab and civil liberties abuses committed during the Bush years, starting with habeas corpus and ending with posse comitatus.

We are now living under a dictatorship! Replacing one tyrant with another is not what we should be after. A "kinder" Democratic dictatorship would be as onerous as a Republican.

We have an obligation to future generations to restore the Constitution and the republic for which so many have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Nothing less will suffice!

[GreenArrow]

18. same arguments apply to others

Even those who have "apologized" don't apologize for the right reasons or the right things, but instead, prefer to pretend that there was some honorable reason for us to be in Iraq, and couch their "votes" as being "mistakes" and "regretable." These "apologies", lame and latecoming as they may be, do not spring from any point of principle, but rather political considerations.

I think it's safe to say that such will be inclined to make similar mistaken and regretable decisions in the future, and equally safe to say that one of them will be elected President in 2008.

[Vadem]

20. Hillary lost me when she co-sponsored a bill with John McCain...

prohibiting flag burning!!!! Give me a freaking break! flag burning from a so-called moderate Democrat?

She is a panderer and I have no use for panderers! She is following that toesucking bast**d Dick Morris, just as he advised her husband, to triangulate! I despise triangulation and I despise pandering!! She will NOT get my vote!